Previous ISLOs Work Timeline and Narrative

Historical Information on the Work for Developing and Assessing SLOs for Institutional-Level Programs

2008

In 2008, the SLO steering committee developed a first round of institutional-level SLOs for degrees, certificates, transfer, personal development and job skills based on ICETC/CSUGE.

This process included defining the SLOs, mapping the SLOs to courses, defining the assessments, assessing the SLOs, and analyzing the results. The committee decided to focus on common educational goals and develop the SLOs according to the GE categories for transfer and degree seeking students. A workshop was held on April 4, 2008 with administrators and faculty representing the appropriate departments, to create the SLOs and develop assessments for the respective SLOs. Institutional SLOs were created for the following areas:

English Communication (IGETC/CSUGE),

Mathematical Concepts and Quantitative Reasoning (IGETC/CSUGE),

Arts and Humanities (IGETC/CSUGE),

Social and Behavioral Sciences (IGETC/CSUGE),

Physical and Biological Sciences (IGETC/CSUGE),

Languages other than English (IGETC), and Lifelong Understanding and Self-Development (CSUGE).

Since the April 4, 2008 workshop there has been a shift in thinking regarding Institutional-level SLOs, resulting in the decision to base them on Associate Degree Requirements, plus College Skills and CTE. Many of the SLOs developed by the participants in the original workshop remain valid. More collaboration will be necessary to develop SLOs for some new categories and to revise some of the older SLOs that don't work for the new categories.

2009-2010

The new categories, based on the G.E. areas defined in the Associate Degree Requirements 2009-2010 are: General Education The areas below comprise a total of 14 Institutional Student Learning Objectives (ISLO's):

Fall 2010

Career Technical Education (CTE) College Skills For all of areas, interdisciplinary groups met to draft ISLOs on "Opening Day Fall 2010," created an assessment plan, and agreed on an assessment schedule. The groups went through a very similar process to the one used to develop departmental level program SLOs. The only difference is that these institutional-level programs are much larger and involve the collaboration of multiple departments.

2010-2012

Over the course of 2 years (Fall 2010-Fall 2012), the college assessed the 14 ISLO's through a combination of direct assessment and mapping of course level assessment results. Results were discussed in department and division meetings and flex workshops in fall 2011, spring 2012 and fall 2012.

2012 Fall

In fall 2012, a flex workshop was held to discuss the ISLO process, make adjustments as needed, and continue with the ISLO assessment process.

Below is a report from that meeting:

The CLOSING THE LOOP WORKSHEET is used in department and division meetings and flex workshops to facilitate discussion concerning ISLO results.

2013 Spring

The attendees at the spring flex session were presented with 3 options for future ISLO assessment:

1. Continue with current process using IGETC model.

2. Create Core Compentency

3. Adopt LEAP outcomes

August 2013

FLEX Workshops on LEAP OUTCOMES The majority of participants expressed significant interest in the LEAP outcomes. A workshop took place Monday, August 19 2013 to discuss the benefits of adopting this model for ISLO assessment. LEAP (Liberal Education and America's Promise) Outcomes & Materials:

2015 Update

Institutional Learning Outcomes Revisited 2015 The Institutional Learning Outcomes are the umbrella that all degree, program, and course-level outcomes are housed under. There are proposed Institutional Learning Outcomes:

1. Effective Communication
2. Critical Thinking
3. Collaboration
4. Information Literacy
5. Quantitative Literacy
6. Community Engagement & Global Responsibility
7. Creative & Innovation Thinking
8. Lifelong Learning

Institutional SLO's & Assessment Plans - What are Institutional Learning Outcomes?

Students acquire knowledge and skills through their coursework and in co-curricular activities. When students graduate with a degree/certificate, transfer to university, or enter the workforce, they should have evidence that demonstrate the Institutional Learning Outcomes. The Institutional Learning Outcomes are the umbrella that all degree, program, and course-level outcomes are housed under.

Why have Institutional Learning Outcomes?

Institutional Learning Outcomes can be used to improve student learning and instructional approaches through an examination and discussion of assessments of broad learning outcomes shared by multiple departments and divisions. They are also required for accreditation purposes. (ACCJC Standard I.B.1[i], I.B.2[ii] and II.A.11[iii])

How have we arrived at ours?

Beginning in 2008, faculty and administrators collaborated to develop Institutional Learning Outcomes based on GE, Basic Skills, and CTE requirements culminating in the 2010 Opening Day activity where the current 14 ISLOs were created.

Where are we now?

From 2010-2012, the college assessed its ISLOs and discussed the results at department retreats, division meetings, and other meetings.

Although this process helped focus our campus-wide efforts to evaluate student learning, the process was not uniform and many faculty did not see a connection between student learning and the assessment results. In addition, some faculty felt this process was burdensome.

Where should we go?

In fall 2012, during FLEX workshops on ISLOs, faculty began expressing interest in adopting the AAC&Us Essential Learning Outcomes, which are part of their Liberal Education and Americas Promise Campaign to improve higher education practices.

Liberal Education and Americas Promise, Essential Learning Outcomes Framework Knowledge of Human Cultures, and the Physical and Natural World Intellectual and Practical Skills Personal and Social Responsibility Integrative Learning.

In 2011, the Chancellors office issued Executive Order 1065[i], which states, "Each CSU campus shall define its GE student learning outcomes to fit within the framework of the four Essential Learning Outcomes." The rationale is that by using the Liberal Education and Americas Promise framework, colleges can still identify more specific outcomes that reflect their institutional values and mission while achieving a more coherent assessment of student learning.

How could we use the Liberal Education & Americas Promise framework?

On the following pages is a proposal for integrating our current ISLOs into the Liberal Education and Americas Promise framework in an effort to move towards a more meaningful, simplified institutional assessment process that is more inclusive, coherent, and manageable.

Under the Liberal Education and Americas Promise framework, program and course level assessments would be directly connected to the Institutional Learning Outcomes, defined on the next pages, and would still be relevant to the 14 ISLOs that were assessed before.

Using the Liberal Education and Americas Promise model, the 14 ISLOs can be focused into 6-8 Institutional Learning Outcomes that allow for broader and more effective institutional assessment of student learning.

What will the proposed ILO assessment process look like?

Faculty would implement a Signature Assignment that demonstrates at least two of the proposed Institutional Learning Outcomes and make available three examples of student work (high, mid, low) for an assessment work group.

The assessment workgroup would evaluate a sample of 100-150 Signature Assignments in paid teams of two faculty per rubric (12-15 faculty) using VALUE rubrics and other rubrics as needed. They would evaluate after spring semester ends over a 2-3 day period. An assessment summary would be created and shared with the campus-wide community. Signature Assignments could also be used to showcase student work giving students more ownership and sense of pride in their work and make learning visible.

What would using the Liberal Education & Americas Promise framework mean for faculty?

Realigning our current ISLOs using the Liberal Education and Americas Promise framework would not need to result in any new work for faculty or require any changes in current assessment practices at the course and program levels. However, developing Signature Assignments (or designating existing assignments as such) within each program would be beneficial to students and make student learning more visible at every level of assessment: course, program, and institutional.

Where can I find out more?

Examples from California Community Colleges:

Listing of ISLOs
Salt Lake Community College Seven General Education Learning Outcomes 1. Students communicate effectively. 2. Students develop quantitative literacies necessary for their chosen field of study. 3. Students think critically and creatively. 4. Students develop the knowledge and skills to community engaged learners and scholars. 5. Students develop the knowledge and skills to work with others in a professional and constructive manner. 6. Students develop computer and information literacy. 7. Students develop the attitudes and skills for lifelong wellness.
Palomar College Four General Education/Institutional Learning Outcomes (based directly on the AAC&U Essential Learning Outcomes) 1. Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World 2. Intellectual and Practical Skills 3. Personal and Social Responsibility 4. Integrative and Applied Learning
Chaffey College Four Core Competencies 1. Communication 2. Critical Thinking and Information Competency 3. Community/Global Awareness and Responsibility 4. Personal, Academic, and Career Development
Pasadena College Five General Education Outcomes 1. Communication 2. Cognition 3. Information Competency 4. Social Responsibility 5. Personal Development

[i] The California State University Office of the Chancellor, Executive Order No. 1065: http://www.calstate.edu/eo/EO-1065.pdf
[i] Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Accreditation Standards, Adopted Jun 2014, Standard I.B.1. The institution demonstrates a sustained, substantive and collegial dialog about student outcomes, student equity, academic quality, institutional effectiveness, and continuous improvement of student learning and achievement.[ii] Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Accreditation Standards, Adopted Jun 2014, Standard
I.B.2. The institution defines and assesses student learning outcomes for all institutional programs and student and learning support services.[iii] Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) Accreditation Standards, Adopted Jun 2014, Standard II.A.11. The institution includes in all of its programs, student learning outcomes, appropriate to the program level, in communication competency, information competency, quantitative competency, analytic inquiry skills, ethical reasoning, the ability to engage in diverse perspectives, and other program-specific learning outcomes.